Critical thinking: Steinbeck v. Law v. Singer

What we read 
In his essay "Carving the Roast Beast", Stephen Law quotes from the philosopher Peter Singer, who is perhaps the most famous philosopher now working. In fact, reminding us that Socrates was sentenced to death by the law in democratic Athens, Singer received death threats from people who hated his ideas when he took up his post at Princeton University. 

Death threats? Yes. Even 2,400 years after the Athenian democracy killed Socrates according to the rule of law, philosophy can still be a dangerous business: some people hate critical thinking, sound reasoning and solid evidence, which signs of healthy education often tend to threaten traditional falsehoods, customs, myths, and prejudices, among other morally and factually bad beliefs inherited from our ancestors or elsewhere. 

Although Law uses Singer for support, Singer does not agree with Law that killing is always wrong. On the contrary, whilst agreeing with Law that speciesism is wrong, Singer makes a strong case that it is Law's first supporting reason in "Carving the Roast Beast" that is the one that provides a solid basis for good morals, with the speciesism argument reminding us that we cannot justly treat living things differently merely because they are different species. I agree with Singer, which is why I think that Law is wrong when he says that "It's morally wrong to eat meat" (2003, p. 1). 

_______________________________________ 

My questions for readers 

What do you think? 
Unlike our other critical thinking exercises, you might like to spend a little more time thinking about these questions before you write your comment or comments. (You might prefer to discuss the questions in separate comments.)

• Would Peter Singer approve of the shooting of Candy's dog? Would he agree with Steinbeck's presentation that George was right to kill Lennie?
  In other words, what does Law's first supporting reason say about the shooting of Lennie by George?
   
• Why might Singer's ideas about the basis of good morals have so upset some people that they wanted to kill Singer?
   
• And you? Do you agree more with Stephen Law or with Peter Singer?
   
• Finally, was George right to shoot Lennie? Why was it right or wrong?
  And if you think that George should not have shot Lennie, what should he have done instead in the situation? 

_______________________________________ 

References

• Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas [Kindle Edition] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/
   
• Steinbeck, J. (2015). Of Mice and Men (Online edition prepared for AEP classes at AUA). Bangkok. Retrieved from https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbvXfk3Udqvmkiyi34

Critical Thinking: The Secret Garden (Bixby & Scanlon, 2013, p. 92)

What we read 
We have just read an excerpt from the 1911 novel The Secret Garden, by Frances Hodgson Burnett. In this reading, you probably noticed that in the dialogue, the speech, Burnett uses apostrophes (') in much the same way that Steinbeck does in Of Mice and Men to help show the language of her character, specifically of Martha, the young maid. 

_______________________________________ 

Bixby and Scanlon's questions for readers 
We spent some time discussing important details in the first chapter of Steinbeck's novel and also inferring what the lives of the people might be like, Bixby and Scanlon's critical thinking questions for this reading have similar purposes. 

This process of making inferences continued in the essays on the characters introduced in chapter 2. Steinbeck, like most great novelists, does not usually tell us what his characters are like; rather, he shows them to us through the action and the dialogue. Weak writers like Dan Brown cannot to this: they are continually telling readers about their characters because they lack the skill to show them. 

• What could be making the crying sound? Give reasons to support your guess(es).
   
• What can you infer about daily life from the story? 

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Bixby, J. & Scanlon, J. (2013). Skillful reading & writing: Student's book 3. Oxford: Macmillan Education 

Before we read (Bixby & Scanlon, 2013, p. 88)

What we read 
As usual, Bixby and Scanlon have a prereading question for us to think about before we read their chosen text. 

________________________________ 

Skillful's question to respond to 
When you were young, do you remember a place that was secret or mysterious or where you used to hide? Where was it? What did you do there? Did you play games, read, talk with a friend? (Bixby & Scanlon, 2013, p, 88)

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Bixby, J. & Scanlon, J. (2013). Skillful reading & writing: Student's book 3. Oxford: Macmillan Education 

Critical thinking: Steinbeck v. Law

What we read 
In John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men, the action-packed chapter 3 includes the shooting of Candy's dog, clearly paralleling the coming events in chapter 6, which conclude the novel (2015). We have also read Steven Law's "Carving the Roast Beast" (2003), in which Law argues that eating meat is normally morally wrong, countering the likely opposing arguments with which he expects his meat-loving readers to come up. 

_______________________________________ 

My questions for readers 

What do you think? 

• Would Steven Law approve of the shooting of Candy's dog?
   
• And you? Do you agree with the novel that it was right to kill the dog? 

_______________________________________ 

References

• Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas [Kindle Edition] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/
   
• Steinbeck, J. (2015). Of Mice and Men (Online edition prepared for AEP classes at AUA). Bangkok. Retrieved from https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbvXfk3Udqvmkiyi34